Economics Ph.D in one lesson if you know difference....

[TakeAStepBack]

The impact of it is what is detrimental, not the action itself. He should really STFU. He's been called out a lot in the last number of years.

 

[Toro]

I have folks as friends that say Krugman won the Nobel and therefore isn't to be questioned. Every time I point out how insanely wrong his is, it leads to snears and ignoring. It's a following for those who have absolutely no clue on economics.

A valid retort is; "Obama won a Nobel as well."

The Nobel commission has long viewed the validation of Keynes as the "holy grail" of economics; Krugman provided what the commission desired. I don't begrudge him, he knew his audience and crafted his message to their desires. Krugman is a shlock economist, but a good salesman who marketed himself expertly. "Economies of Scale" are far from a new concept, but leveraging this into a general equilibrium theory restored some credit to Keynes ideas and got the left all a-twitter.

From this standpoint, Krugman is far more deserving than many the Nobel commission see fit to honor.

Hayek, Friedman, Stigler, Lucas and Prescott have all won the Nobel Prize in economics. That's hardly a list of Keynesians.

And Krugman is hardly a schlock economist. He may not be a macroeconomist, and he is a liberal hack, but he's a brilliant trade economist.

 

[Toro]

Sure, if you view the honor on par with a Cracker Jack prize. He's a charlatan selling economic views. And it's rubbish. He should be on late night infomercials instead.

Krugman won his prize based on his theory that geography effects trade patterns. Why is he wrong?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because he is a lib, nothing else, according to the weak heads.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Sure, if you view the honor on par with a Cracker Jack prize. He's a charlatan selling economic views. And it's rubbish. He should be on late night infomercials instead.

Krugman won his prize based on his theory that geography effects trade patterns. Why is he wrong?

Congrats on establishing old understanding. Can he shut up now? He's a hack.

 

[Toro]

Sure, if you view the honor on par with a Cracker Jack prize. He's a charlatan selling economic views. And it's rubbish. He should be on late night infomercials instead.

Krugman won his prize based on his theory that geography effects trade patterns. Why is he wrong?

Congrats on establishing old understanding. Can he shut up now? He's a hack.

What is "old understand?" When I studied trade economics 20 years ago, his theories weren't being taught in trade theory. Now they are.

I agree that he is a liberal hack, but we shouldn't diminish his accomplishments for which he is famous.

 

[The Professor]

between tax and spend mal-investment or mal-stimulus and real private sector investment!

Do you have a Ph.D in economics or not? Is it a secret?

In the overall scheme of things I don't think it matters much. Thomas Sowell has a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago (1968). However, it seems that conservatives praise him and liberals disown him. Even though he is Black, most African Americans do not accept his conservative ideas. The bottom line is that it is not about academic credentials, but about about political persuasions, personal preferences and vested interests.

I could be wrong, though. I was wrong once back in 1971 ... no wait I was right. Forget it.

One last thought: Those with PhDs have agendas just like the rest of the population, and just as Christians cannot agree on Biblical interpretations, economists cannot agree on economic policy. They may mean well, but that doesn't mean they are right.

As for me, I have an MBA and JD; however my MBA was more focused on accounting than economics. I took every accounting course the state university offered, but that does not make me an expert on economics. The economist I admire the most is Thomas Sowell.

Have a great day.

 

[Unkotare]

between tax and spend mal-investment or mal-stimulus and real private sector investment!

Do you have a Ph.D in economics or not? Is it a secret?

In the overall scheme of things I don't think it matters much.

Probably not. I just find it telling that Eddy there is so afraid to say one way or the other.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Krugman won his prize based on his theory that geography effects trade patterns. Why is he wrong?

Congrats on establishing old understanding. Can he shut up now? He's a hack.

What is "old understand?" When I studied trade economics 20 years ago, his theories weren't being taught in trade theory. Now they are.

I agree that he is a liberal hack, but we shouldn't diminish his accomplishments for which he is famous.

This is a good, complex Econ question. Let me mull it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

between tax and spend mal-investment or mal-stimulus and real private sector investment!

I just earned a Ph.D. July before last.

One lesson?

Go fuck yourself.

They give PhDs in ignoring facts?

The more liberal the college, the more likely that is.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, Krugman is primarily a socialist using his status as a economist only to lend credence to his socialism. This is why no liberal will dare defend any substantive conclusion of Krugman's.

On balance its a help to have the greatest lefty economist be an open socialist.

I'm sorry, I have to call you on this one.

Krugman is noted for his work on designing an international trade theory based on comparative advantage. Krugman argued that certain areas are naturally adapted to certain outputs, such as agriculture, technology, or labor. This leads to specialization based on economies of scale and should be leveraged. Clearly this defies "socialist" theory, which would hold that production and trade be designed for the benefit of labor, not to maximize economies of scale.

Krugman is an advocate of central planning, to be sure, and argues as much in his thesis. But to say he is advocating socialism is simply wrong. Krugman is an authoritarian Keynesian, not a Marxian.

I oppose Krugman and his theories, but let's do so intelligently from a position of fact.

 

[jillian]

Sure, if you view the honor on par with a Cracker Jack prize. He's a charlatan selling economic views. And it's rubbish. He should be on late night infomercials instead.

Krugman won his prize based on his theory that geography effects trade patterns. Why is he wrong?

come on, toro, more amusing is someone like TASB dismissing someone like krugman out of hand. one might use equally impressive people to dispute krugman's beliefs about economics (assuming credible people disagree with him) but dismissing him? calling the nobel prize in economics a cracker jack prize? pretty laughable.

i met krugman last night, btw. i was at a lecture that he and stiglitz appeared at. they were wonderful. and i have never heard anything that disagrees with their theories which makes sense.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Krugman won his prize based on his theory that geography effects trade patterns. Why is he wrong?

He isn't wrong in regard to the idea that economies of scale based on regional specialization create opportunities in global trade for nations which leverage these advantages. That is actually a sound observation. Where Krugman is wrong is in the advocacy of central planning as a means of ensuring economical use of said specializations. A global body (admittedly not directly stated by Krugman) determining the proper production of nations is a bit chilling and defies well established market principles.

So Krugman is correct that regional specialization is advantageous, where he misses the boat is in failing to recognize that the market will drive those specializations without the need for central planning.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Because he is a lib, nothing else, according to the weak heads.

Go back to bleating "Ohhh Bahhh Bahhh Mahhh," Jakemattes. Leave grownup discussions to the grownups.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hmmm . . . no documentation? Let me help.

Global Strategy - http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/For-Gol/Global-Strategy.html
On the macro level, global strategy is used by regions, countries, trading ... thus diminishing tribal and regional rivalries and creating unified nation-states. ... The classical theory of international trade is based on the notion of economic advantage, ... global trade primarily to capitalize on opportunities related to specialization ...

Krugman won his prize based on his theory that geography effects trade patterns. Why is he wrong?

He isn't wrong in regard to the idea that economies of scale based on regional specialization create opportunities in global trade for nations which leverage these advantages. That is actually a sound observation. Where Krugman is wrong is in the advocacy of central planning as a means of ensuring economical use of said specializations. A global body (admittedly not directly stated by Krugman) determining the proper production of nations is a bit chilling and defies well established market principles.

So Krugman is correct that regional specialization is advantageous, where he misses the boat is in failing to recognize that the market will drive those specializations without the need for central planning.

 

[Freemason9]

between tax and spend mal-investment or mal-stimulus and real private sector investment!

Those aren't even real terms you're using. That stuff comes straight from ideological propaganda.

You should find some gainful employment and spend less time on these boards, E.B.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hmmm . . . no documentation? Let me help.

Global Strategy - Global Strategy - benefits
On the macro level, global strategy is used by regions, countries, trading ... thus diminishing tribal and regional rivalries and creating unified nation-states. ... The classical theory of international trade is based on the notion of economic advantage, ... global trade primarily to capitalize on opportunities related to specialization ...

What is your point, Jakematters?

Do you have one?

 

[pinqy]

between tax and spend mal-investment or mal-stimulus and real private sector investment!

Those aren't even real terms you're using. That stuff comes straight from ideological propaganda.

You should find some gainful employment and spend less time on these boards, E.B.

Oh, my favorite so far from E.B is from http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/255663-inflation-2.html#post6211163 where he says

a little Econ 101 for you, class one, day one, minute one!!

If energy prices go up, then other prices must go down if there is no change in the money supply!!! Hence, increased energy prices can't cause inflation as you thought!! Sorry

It would make my head hurt too much to try to even respond to that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't pretend the comments were yours, but in fact a rehash of someone else.

You are not creative enough to write primary sources.

And you are unprofessional and immoral enough to fail to cite them, as a good adjunct economics professor should cite.

Hmmm . . . no documentation? Let me help.

Global Strategy - Global Strategy - benefits
On the macro level, global strategy is used by regions, countries, trading ... thus diminishing tribal and regional rivalries and creating unified nation-states. ... The classical theory of international trade is based on the notion of economic advantage, ... global trade primarily to capitalize on opportunities related to specialization ...

What is your point, Jakematters?

Do you have one?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Don't pretend the comments were yours, but in fact a rehash of someone else.

Huh?

You are not creative enough to write primary sources.

And you are unprofessional and immoral enough to fail to cite them, as a good adjunct economics professor should cite.

You use a lot of drugs whilst munching on paint chips, doncha Jakematters?